Why Star Wars Should be Left to the Fans 425
Aguazul writes "The BBC has an interesting take on George Lucas's meddling with our memories: 'Fans of Star Wars are not happy. Someone has been tampering with their movie history.' They speculate on who really owns a piece of art. Even the artist doesn't really know what he's created, and a work doesn't become 'something' until given value by an audience: 'the artist is merely the medium for his or her work.' Many people contributed to the Star Wars trilogy. Is Lucas' over-inflated idea of his own importance in the process the reason he is stopping people seeing the unmodified originals?"
All I can say is... (Score:5, Funny)
Re:All I can say is... (Score:4, Interesting)
I dont mind him messing with it. In fact the tweaks are somewhat interesting.
However, why does he just not release the originals? I mean a directors cut thrown in with the originals and *NO* one would have bitched at all. Instead we just see the tweaked versions.
I honestly like the way they did Raiders. That was decently done. I guess he wanted people to remember some commercial he did in the 90s and not call him a liar I guess.
Re: (Score:2, Redundant)
Because as soon as he edits it he throws out the older version considering the edited one the 'canon' and the older one his imperfect vision due to technology limitations at the time.
Re: (Score:2)
Which is something akin to creating a new version of Casablanca with an ending that has better appreciation by current sample audiences. Brrrr...
Re:All I can say is... (Score:5, Insightful)
It's what he did in the late 90's when he released the special editions of the 4,5,and 6. I full support the idea of the star-wars franchise universe taken out of his hands and in it's place give him a box of crayons to play.
Re:All I can say is... (Score:5, Funny)
Think again. He could use those crayons to write the books for yet another prequel/sequel/whatever.
Comment removed (Score:4, Interesting)
Update Manager (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
.. that's like comparing a story in a book to the mechanical process of projecting images on a screen in such a way to make the illusion of motion.
a more apt analogy is rewriting Romeo and Juliet to have them live and then going to all the libraries and throwing out the older copies to replace them with that one because it has a more positive feel to the current right's holder.
Re: (Score:3)
except Lucas didn't barge into my home and remove my decaying old VHS tapes.
No, but if you tried to make your VHS experience available to other fans on a mass scale, you'd have legal copyright proceedings against you which could end in jail time. Is that any different?
This is precisely why the "Copyright Term Extension Act" was awful law to begin with. 17+17 years should be plenty of time to make a heap of money off of a movie, book, or piece of music. Certainly George Lucas has made more than his fair share of money off of Star Wars, and that money did incentivize him to go out and make the prequels. Had the original 17+17 rule for copyright been in effect today, the copyright on Star Wars would be expiring this year instead of 100 years after the death of George Luc
Subjective not objective (Score:2)
But how is it any different from a new version of a computer program that has more efficient algorithms and fewer security vulnerabilities?
"Beauty is in the eye of the beholder". Whether or not you like a film is a subjective decision - you cannot prove that one film/book/poem is better than another: we all have our own opinions. Hence any change to a work of art is bound to have those that like it and those who do not.
Re:Update Manager (Score:5, Insightful)
You could compare using a CGI Yoda in some portions that were originally puppet Yoda to your example, but what about such decisions as not having Han shoot first? That's different, in that there was no change in technology at all, 'just' a change in the character. What new technology allowed Lucas to capture Greedo shooting first when it somehow couldn't be done that way originally? If you're going to compare this to a program, what about rewriting, say, an Ultima game so that which decisions lead to which endings is different?
Re:All I can say is... (Score:5, Insightful)
If that was a reason anyone could accept, Metropolis would have gotten a makeover years ago and the old one would have been destroyed.
The charm and a lot of the value those original versions of Star Wars had was due to the limitations and how they managed to work around them. The first scene (ya know, where Leia's ship gets badgered by a Star Destroyer) was awesome at the time, I remember how the theater went wild at the very first scene of the movie just from it being so awesome. Today, of course it isn't as impressive anymore, we're used to such scenes by now. But that's not what made the movie a classic. What did was that in its time it had the maybe best and certainly some of the most impressive special effects. Giving them a makeover does of course improve them, but it also cheapens them. Today, this is something every second movie will show. And I'm not talking about the "old" special effects, I'm talking about the remakes.
Yes, the redos make the movie look less impressive. Not more. Less. It becomes yet another space opera movie. The special effects introduced later are nothing special anymore, they're a staple of the industry. What made them impressive was that they could pull them off in that time without the aid of perfect CGI, with a lot of work and detailed models. That's what made it special and great.
Take any Anderson TV show (talking about their real, not puppet, shows, namely Space 1999 and UFO). By today's standards, of course the special effects look dated and, at best, cute. What makes both shows a classic and made them develop a cult following was that they put a LOT of work into it to make it believable with the limited means of the times.
Just like with Star Wars. Star Wars produced today would simply be yet another SciFi movie. The same special effects as anyone, and let's be blunt, the story is nothing special, it's an average fantasy story that's been transported into a SciFi setting, which has been done before and since. Today, with the "augmented" effects, it would probably drown in the rest of the genre. And, well, the second trilogy shows that quite well.
What makes Star Wars the classic it is, is, that it was ahead of its time, that it set a standard few productions could meet for years to come. And in this standard it should be preserved. Yes, it looks dated. Of course it does, it's more than a quarter century old. But "augmenting" it cheapens the achievement, it cheapens the experience. There is of course nothing wrong with giving the movie a makeover and offering that augmented versions additionally, but the original one should be preserved.
To close the circle, do you think anyone would remember Metropolis today if it had been redone and remodeled every decade to update the technology? I mean, it's not like that movie has such a great story either.
Re:All I can say is... (Score:5, Insightful)
to say nothing of the poor buggers that did those stunning model shots, only to find no remaining example of their work to show their grandchildren.
i bet Lucas even removed their names from the credits.
Re: (Score:3)
That's another thing.
I do robotics as a hobby, and some of my work has actually been used as a prop. Nothing remotely Star Wars, but still something I'm kinda proud of. To think that my work would eventually be replaced by CGI is disheartening.
Think of the detail in the original Star Wars models, that's something you don't slap together over night. I really look up to those people, they were very creative and very careful in their work, you could see in the original movies that these were works of love, not
Re:All I can say is... (Score:5, Insightful)
As further evidence of this the tie-in using Shmi Skywalker and Cliegg Lars is pretty obviously forced- wedged in like a wrench in a cheesecake but was necessary to get "Aniken" (young Darth) tied up in Luke's & Leia's lives. As we have some idea of just how vast the universe is happenstance like that, (planned or not) is just ridiculous.
I'm not a hater, just sayin' Y'all can argue if you want; but there's only one man who knows the truth and he ain't gonna talk.
To show I'm not a hater I think the casting of Ewan McGregor as the young Kenobi was brilliant. He did a very good job.
You need to see Yes Man too. (Score:2)
See, Darth Vader changed as shown in this one minute and six seconds YouTube video [youtube.com]. ;)
who's over-inflated idea of his own importance? (Score:2, Insightful)
>> Even the artist doesn't really know what he's created, and a work doesn't become 'something' until given value by an audience: 'the artist is merely the medium for his or her work.'
the writers, producers, costume designers, actors, etc are really irrelevant in the creative process. no, its the
talentless consumer thats really the creative wellspring of artistic work
Re: (Score:3)
Well, at the end of the day, yes. Whether it's one guy sitting in his apartment with an easel or a piano, or a team of hundreds, at the end of the day art's intention is to be consumed by, well, the talentless consumer (if you wish to take that extreme a position).
A similar thing happened in the late 1980s when Frank Zappa went to remix a lot of the old Mothers of Invention records, and due to deterioration in the original masters, he re-recorded those takes, and the differences were sufficient that a lot
Re: (Score:2)
As many have pointed out, if someone is so strongly partial to the original Zappa recordings, they can find those records. No one is forcing them to destroy their originals and replace them with the new and allegedly inferior mix.
As a (crappy) musician, I've experienced that myself, where I collaborated with a good friend on a track, and after a few more (dozen) listens, decided his contribution sucked, so I created an alternate version that was more in line with my tastes. I didn't delete the old one, in
Re:who's over-inflated idea of his own importance? (Score:4, Insightful)
No one is forcing them to destroy their originals and replace them with the new and allegedly inferior mix.
This is what I don't understand about the Star Wars complainers. If they stop buying the new copies and just keep watching the old ones, he'll stop making changes. He's only releasing a new edition every year or two because everyone and their cousin goes out and buys it.
Re: (Score:3)
I think most complainers want an HD version of the old movies. Now they have to choose between Laserdisc rips of the old version or Blueray copies of the new.
Re: (Score:2)
Two things:
- (minor) the copyright on the old Star Wars movies will run out before the copyright on the new ones. He may want to play it safe there.
- (major) I guess he feels no-one in their right mind would buy the new versions, given a choice.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
So it's OK to add things unless you think the additions are bad? Who the fuck are you: Irwin Kirshner?
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
the writers, producers, costume designers, actors, etc are really irrelevant in the creative process. no, its the
talentless consumer thats really the creative wellspring of artistic work
It's not hard to find sci-fi with better writing, better costumes, better acting, better music, etc.
Without the support of the fanbase the movie falls into obscurity and everyone invovled becomes unimportant.
The fans paid for it to be what it is today and George Lucas gladly took their money and shat in their faces.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
The ultimate goal of a creative person should be to let others engage in the same creative process he/she is in. Creating is not just showing that something can be done (or written down in a certain way), but also showing how something can be done, so that others can improve upon it. If this aspect is missing, the artist has failed, and has just created a dead piece of work.
Re:who's over-inflated idea of his own importance? (Score:5, Insightful)
Actually, the thing there is that it's only been in the last few hundred years that artists were willing to start taking credit for work they produced. Prior to about the 19th century, it was God or a muse that did the work, the artist just put down on paper or however else the results.
The consumer is where the works ultimately go, if they're not able to soak into the consumer then there isn't really much art going on. Personally, I find it annoying, but ultimately have to accept that it's not what I make of my work that ultimately matters, it's what the viewer makes of it. Sometimes it's pretty amazing and other times it's pretty depressing.
As far as Star Wars goes, I've been saying for years that George needs to recognize that at this point the fans own the work, and that he really needs to rerelease the original versions, perhaps rescan and remastered, but from the original materials with the highest fidelity in mind. It's arrogant of him to not recognize that he managed to bottle lightning and to leave it as is.
Re: (Score:2)
I don't know if they took credit or not, but they sure took money for their works.
Re:who's over-inflated idea of his own importance? (Score:4, Insightful)
Church's used to put out notices when they wanted to commission art. The church usually had a theme they wanted and they solicited ideas. Artists were supposed to show up with their rough drafts and the church would pick what they wanted.
Titian used to show up with a finished painting. The church almost always bought it. Pissed off the other guys. You think he did that because he was "muse inspired"? If so, it was the muse of economics.
Re: (Score:3)
I'm not sure where to begin. Of course they did it for money, even in the current era you have to have money to pay for food and clothing somehow. I'm not sure how you could misread my post to suggest that that is not the case.
But, it was much viewed much more the way that a lot of people view photography now. The artist had training with the tools necessary to take down the inspiration. The word plagiarism, for instance, didn't even enter the English lexicon until the early part of the 19th century and an
Re: (Score:3)
Right, there's a big difference between an artist saying "My talent and hard work took these ideas to the level of a finished creation.", and "I'm so much a self made man, I invented a time machine and an alphabet so i could teach my elementary school teachers what to teach me." . A little recognition that none of us see farther except by standing on the shoulders of giants is necessary.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Most of the time I let things go, but your post is particularly infuriating, because of the sheer amount of nonsense it contains.
Prior to the 19th century, it was not God or a muse who did the work, however, there was certainly much more work created in the name of someone. If artists had been unwilling to take credit for their work, then we would have never known who wrote Bach's works, as an example. While Bach certainly signed some of his manuscripts with Soli Deo gloria (Glory to God Alone), he also had
Details about the invention of authorship (Score:3)
Your claim about God and creativity is roughly correct. God was the creator; it was the role of artists to reflect the majesty of God's creation. See M.H. Abrams The Mirror and the Lamp. The development of the idea of authorship was partly a response to the upheavals of the industrial revolution. I have attempted to explain this in a video about the invention of the author [youtube.com]. The video description includes references for further reading.
To address the larger point, audiences are significant contributo
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe you or the average geek can't be expected to know this, but this idea is not at at all new. The concept that an author is not the authority on his/her own work has been common, even accepted, in literary analysis for decades. It's sometimes called the 'intentional fallacy'. Calling the author a 'medium' is just the article's way of making an old idea seem new and sexy.
But even if you wouldn't go as far as saying that the interpretor sets the meaning, maybe we could all agree that going back and modi
Re: (Score:2)
that may be true, but that doesn't necessarily imply that every random reader/listener/watcher is
more* authoritative
Re:who's over-inflated idea of his own importance? (Score:5, Insightful)
But even if you wouldn't go as far as saying that the interpretor sets the meaning, maybe we could all agree that going back and modifying a work that you've made is a shitty thing to do if that work already holds meaning for millions of people. As is pointed out in TFA, this is exactly what Lucas did that started this debate
The problem isn't that Lucas keeps going back and re-imagining / revising things. The public has no problem with a directors cut, director's recut, special edition directors re-re-cut...ad nauseum. Its lucas' ip and he's free and welcome to remaster it as much and as often as he likes.
The public however strongly objects to arrogantly being denied what they want.
Me, i want the the THX edition in HD. That is all. No extra scenes. Just a remaster of the original. There is a big market for that. People would be happy to tolerate Lucas indulging in as many editions and remakes and recuts alternate endings, inserted scenes, cgi replacing actors as he likes, if only he'd satisfy the demand for this ONE thing.
From literary circles to legal ones (Score:2)
The concept that an author is not the authority on his/her own work has been common, even accepted, in literary analysis for decades.
So how many more decades will it take for legal analysis to warm up to this concept?
Re: (Score:2)
Wow. Who would have thought that literary geeks (who actually create no literature) would seek to elevate themselves above the creators of the literature they are geeks about.
Waaaiiiitt, a second. This sounds familiar.
Re: (Score:2)
Well, consumers do drive what is put out there. They are the source of demand, and much of the reason companies supply anything is to feed perceived demand. But that's rather like saying the professor owns the problem (he assigned you) and you own the solution (you handed in). If the professor never gave you the problem,
To Promote Progress (Score:5, Insightful)
Article I, Section 8, Clause 8 of the United States Constitution, known as the Copyright Clause: "To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries."
I think that's a reasonable and praiseworthy understanding of what art, and copyright ownership, should be for. The time of creator-control should be "limited" to something like 14 or 28 years (one generation), as was originally intended. Afterward, it belongs to the world.
Re:To Promote Progress (Score:5, Interesting)
I think in our modern age 14 years is unreasonable and even 28 years is downright insane.
Let's say we never changed it from the maximum 28 years. This year we would see the following films entering the public domain (examples are the top ten grossing films in 1983 [wikipedia.org]): Star Wars Episode VI: Return of the Jedi, Terms of Endearment, Flashdance, Trading Places, Wargames, Octopussy, Sudden Impact, Staying Alive, Mr. Mom, Risky Business.
Nostalgia factors aside, I wouldn't exactly call those "culturally relevant" to the modern age - things move way, way faster now. Sure, in the late 1700s a book written 28 years prior would probably still be quite popular and very relevant to the times.. but the times changed faster and faster.
Something like 1 year would be more fair to all parties in my opinion, at least on an item-by-item basis. Don't most movies, games, music albums, etc. make the vast majority of their money in the first few months? Sequels wouldn't be affected because they would be filed under a new copyright.
Someone else who agrees (Score:5, Informative)
"The public's interest is ultimately dominant over all other interests."
and
"Attention should be paid to the interest of those who are yet unborn, who should be able to see this generation as it saw itself, and the past generation as it saw itself."
Re: (Score:2)
You just blew my mind.
Re: (Score:2)
Damn right... if our children grow up thinking that Greedo shot first, then the terrorists have already won.
The Creator has complete Control (Score:5, Funny)
It is morally right that the creator of a work should have complete control over it for all time immemorial. You don't see people messing with The Iliad -- it exists today in exactly the same format that Homer wrote it down, and the changes that he penciled in to later editions have been faithfully reproduced. The same is true with the plays of Shakespeare, which are always performed with exactly the same script and stage directions that the Bard himself took to the copyright office before the original performances. And music also has never been altered after composition -- the composers intent is always honored by the performer, and the audience would demand no less.
I don't see any reason we should give Lucas any less than the complete and total control over his creations enjoyed by Homer, Shakespeare, and Bach. To afford him anything else would be tragic.
We do not have shakespeare as he wrote it. (Score:2)
All the copies of shakespeare existing were heavily messed with by early theater owners. Scene order was messed with until scenes didn't make sense - characters saying things that the learn about in a later scene, scenes added to use a theatre's special effects -all sorts of changes, leading to arguments in scholarly circles to this day.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
I don't see any reason we should give Lucas any less than the complete and total control over his creations enjoyed by Homer, Shakespeare, and Bach. To afford him anything else would be tragic.
Lucas was ONE of the artists, and it's clear from his later tinkering that his vision of characters such as Han Solo is NOT what ended up on film. So that sad douchey fatsack is wiping out the beloved movies (the combined vision of Lucas, co-writers, actors, etc...) to replace them with his vision, loved seemingly only by himself and his sycophants. It is not one mans creation so why should he get to destroy it? He could release his vision and a clean copy of the original edit but he would rather destroy
Re: (Score:2)
You don't see people messing with The Iliad
I'll see your Iliad and raise you an "Odyssey"
O Brother, Where Art Thou? - Starring George Clooney [imdb.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Lucas uses the Shakespearean interpretation argument on occasion. I don't buy it: it's not someone else interpreting, it's his senile mind changing.
The problem is people keep buying the damn movies. Remember when Coke changed their formula and what happened then? Yeah: if people stopped buying the releases, the originals would be back.
Never gonna happen, sadly.
Fans can be... (Score:2)
... even worse then the author. Most people are mediocre, there are all stars among the fans but knowing who they are isn't something you know until after they've produced something and there's been a reaction.
Re: (Score:3)
Indeed, you touched on an important catch-22 of trusting the fanbase.
The Star Wars prequels were written and filmed long after much of the "Star Wars expanded universe" had been established. This in itself didn't contribute to the terribleness of the prequels; Lucas had fan expectations in mind when he wrote the prequels, though. Darth Vader and the Jedi in general were given way too much importance, the dialogue scenes were sloppy and only served to connect the different settings to the plot, and the trilo
When will Lucas fix "American Graffiti"? (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
That's because people don't have American Graffiti conventions, and don't make as much fuss about it, thus generating him even more money. If people just stopped buying his new versions of Star Wars he'd have to stop reworking them, and likely eventually have to release the originals.
Thus, it's pretty easy to get him to stop doing this. Just stop buying anything but the o
Re: (Score:2)
That's because people don't have American Graffiti conventions, and don't make as much fuss about it, thus generating him even more money.
Graffiti Summer [visitmodesto.com] and the upcoming Petaluma Salute [americangraffiti.net] suggest there's money to be squeezed out of American Graffiti.
who owns our collective memories? (Score:2)
Saving Star Wars: The Special Edition Restoration (Score:5, Informative)
No agreement (Score:2)
There's a problem here: you won't even get agreement from people in answering the question, "What is art?" If you can't get people to agree on what it is, then you won't get agreement from people on the question of "Who owns art?"
It's such a complicated topic where people won't even agree on the basics, so it's hard to come to complex conclusions. One general point that I hope we can reach a consensus on: there's value in preserving art in the original form, even if only as an artifact or cultural snapsh
Yes, scream at your television. (Score:2)
The whole thing reeks of settling old arguments (Score:2)
A lot of the changes seem to be the type that he and his collaborators (he did have them) could have argued about during the original filming. Now that he has complete control over the property, he can "re-win" all of these.
Cooperative Art (Score:2)
It's a vast overstatement that "artists are merely a medium for his or her work". But it's true that artwork is a medium of communication between people, only one of whom is the artist. Without someone to perceive the art, the art might as well not exist. The art's effect is created by the beholder in their own mind. More educated and sensitive minds make more of the art they experience. More cultivated audiences recognize better art and give it more value. The most popular art, especially after generations
More Discussion (Score:2)
This topic has been getting a lot of attention recently. The guys at Red Letter Media [redlettermedia.com] just interviewed the director of the movie The People vs. George Lucas [wikipedia.org] which examines the question in detail.
Foundation/Asimov Series (Score:2)
I want a string of movies based off of Asimov's stories. "The Naked Sun" and "The End of Eternity" come to mind as candidates.
Re: (Score:2)
You're in luck [scifimoviepage.com]. I'm not sure if Roland Emmerich is the right man for this job, though.
I don't masturbate for other people (Score:2)
And neither does George Lucas. He does all of his masturbation to please himself and no one else.
I still watch the originals. (Score:2)
How in hell is he stopping me from viewing the originals? No one came and took them from me.
Re: (Score:2)
Not just about Greedo. (Score:4, Insightful)
Greedo seems to be the poster child for complaints, but the Original Star Wars (1977) is ruined pretty much start to finish for me. There is so much ridiculously out of place tacked on CGI it makes me gag.
IMO, what was done to the the original 1977 Star Wars, is as bad as taking "Jason and the Argonauts" and replacing the stop motion work of Ray Harryhausen, with CGI.
He has taken a historically significant special effects movie and added a bunch of lame CGI on top and turned it into a running joke.
For myself, I am only interested in having even a decent DVD copy of just the original 1977 movie (the old DVD box set version is not DVD quality).
I have no interest in anything else Lucas has done.
Over-inflated importance (Score:2, Insightful)
It's the rabid fanatics who have an over-inflated idea of their own importance.
They are consumers. Numbers. Statistics. Buyers.
Not creators or artists.
So STFU, get out of Mom's basement, and get a life already.
Re: (Score:3)
The originals could be released in THX and HD. That's the point. He keeps changing the editing too though. I'm not that bothered overall. Some of the changes have been good, some bad.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Yeah I was a die hard jedi wannabe, up until about season2 of clone wars crappy cartoon. When I realized the stupid clone wars was gonna be ridiculously long like the afghanistan war
READ TIMOTHY ZHAN BOOKS
Re:UGH (Score:5, Insightful)
Uhm, most films are about fictional characters. Casablanca, Gone with the Wind, Harry Potter, Avatar, to name a few.
But it IS a defining moment, because hey, this guy is going to deliver our heroes to someplace safe. But he just shot someone. In cold blood. Can we trust this guy to bring our heroes safely to their destination? Who knows. We're excited and tense.
And now we have this new version. Where he politely follows the Geneva convention and Rules of Engagement of civilized people everywhere. No ambiguity - we can trust him. We wait for the inevitable discovery of his golden heart. Meh.
There is a huge difference there that changes the whole movie up to where he overcomes his greed. It's open heart surgery on a living movie. And I hate it.
Re: (Score:2)
If Lucas is that fucking bored, he can remake THX1138. (Remake, not retouch.) That one is badly in need of some multi-million dollar special effects.
Re: (Score:2)
I think that's called "turnerizing" and it is a pejorative.
Re: (Score:2)
ow many people would be up in arms if some stupid studio "creative" executive started adding cgi to Forbidden Planet, War of the Worlds, or The Day the Earth Stood Still just to please a modern audience ?
They redid the "The Day the Earth Stood Still's" CGI not too long ago [imdb.com]. But for some reason they made Michael Rennie look like Keanu Reeves. I wasn't up in arms, but was a definite why did they waste money on this? Seemed like a lot of work for very little benefit. They should of just left it like it
Re:I have seen the Blu-ray releases (Score:4, Funny)
In the new cut, did they put in the cantine scenes from the death star?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sv5iEK-IEzw [youtube.com]
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KJ2yRTRlMFU [youtube.com]
Re:I have seen the Blu-ray releases (Score:5, Insightful)
Uh, no. Your cell phone does not produce better footage than a 335mm film camera.
The film stock might have aged badly due to poor preservation, but that is not the same thing at all.
Re: (Score:2)
Heh. Damn iPad keyboard. Sorry!
Re: (Score:3)
really? on blu ray? without digitally enhancing them?
My cellphone produces better quality video than the cameras they used in the 70's to film the original movies. If they were to keep the original image quality I wouldn't be surprised if they fit the entire first trilogy on a single dvd
http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/film-resolution.htm [kenrockwell.com] So you are saying your cell phones camera is 175 megapixles at 24 frames a second or better? I would be very interested as to what brand of phone you own.
I recently downloaded the laserdisk versions (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Artists rule, but there's a limit (Score:5, Informative)
I think an interesting parallel is the BBC TV series Red Dwarf. It was originally was made on a shoestring budget where you could see the 100W light bulb in the back of the model ship in shots. later, after the show had been well received and the budget had gone up considerably, they went back and "remastered" the first three seasons. They cleaned up the footage nicely, but then they also went and CGI'd it, edited some of the dialogue and generally messed about with it.
the reaction to this version was generally pretty negative and fans weren't happy with the changes made. Now if you go and buy the show on DVD, it's the original version you'll find. The remastered is pretty hard to find. The BBC took in board the criticism and gave the fans (you know, the ones paying) what they wanted, which was the original show they fell in love with.
david
Re: (Score:3)
It's unfortunate that that is considered laudable. Ultimately, people like George need to be grateful for the fan support. Star Wars was great, in its way, but screwing around with people's memories is a great way to piss people off. Especially if you go in and muck around with something that has become such a substantial piece of the culture.
Re: (Score:3)
You think people would not buy those new versions if the only thing he did was to improve the picture and sound quality to be closer to the cinematic experience? I betcha even MORE people would buy the DVDs. Do you think people buy them because of the alterations and not despite them? If you want to cite capitalism, at least realize that he could sell more and not fewer copies if he just did a quality improvement without changes to the content.
What he does is to cheapen the experience, not enhance it. By ad
Re: (Score:2)
Maggie got off at least one round.
Re:It's his movie (Score:5, Insightful)
It's Lucas' right, but he's an ass for not letting us have the restoration without additions as it's something that had to happen whether he was going to crap it up again or not. So you're right, and everyone who wants his head on a pike is right, too.
Re: (Score:3)
There's nothing wrong with making new editions. The problem is that he is trying to eradicate the originals from history.
Re: (Score:2)
There's nothing wrong with making new editions. The problem is that he is trying to eradicate the originals from history.
Ahh, that was Lucas who broke into my house and scratched up my 1993 laserdisc copies
Re: (Score:2)
Huh? I really didn't expect him to be that dedicated to his cause.
Re:It's his movie (Score:5, Funny)
The problem isn't so much that George is perpetrating a fraud. He is suppressing the originals. Part of his "ownership" is a social contract with the rest of us. It's part of the deal he made when he got to publish the originals and get a monopoly on their copying and distribution.
George owes us a usable copy of the original. That's a 35mm print BTW.
Also, his attempt to create derivative works and call them Star Wars are fraud and should be pointed out as such and perhaps even prosecuted as such.
Quite often whining about "following the rules" when it comes to copyright tends to be entirely one sided and in favor of publishers.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
That whooshing sound you hear is the point flying over your head.
No one argues that Lucas isn't the legal owner. Of course he is, and of course he has the legal right to do whatever he wants. "Own" is metaphorical in this article, and your entire comment is irrelevant.
Re:Prediction (Score:5, Funny)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_BMgegut3UM [youtube.com]
I think this speaks for itself.
Re: (Score:3)
There is no difference between "commercial" art and any other kind of art, except style and perhaps meaning.
Re: (Score:2)
> A work of art is entirely the work and creation of the artist creating it.
No it isn't. It's a derivative of the commons.
This is why US copyright is not framed as a personal property right, is supposed to be temporary, and is stated to exist for the public good.
Re: (Score:2)
And when that wears out, become a pirate? It's that or accept the revisionist history.
Yes, on one hand it's just a movie. On the other, it is a product of it's time and as such tells us about that time as long as it isn't changed by a control freak owner. The case of Han shooting first is probably not the most obvious example.
More obvious is E.T. where the government goon's rifles have been replaced by kinder and gentler walky talkies. Now we're edging towards the Big Brother approved message and forgetting
Re: (Score:3)
. E.T.'s message is more of a liberal 'guns are bad' attitude than an attempt at indoctrinating us into a police state.
It hardly matters, we still lose the social and political background of the time and reduce the value of the work in the process.
So in 20 years, I am entitled to make a personal copy of something I can't find to buy? Great, that'll do a world of good.
My only shot would be to pirate a copy from someone who made a digital copy when it could be found.
More to the philosophical point, copyright is a bargain struck with the artist. They get protection for a limited time (though that time seems to be growing awful
Re: (Score:2)
Why a director would add such a pointless camera obstruction in post-production I doubt I'll come to negotiate.
Because he can. That is human nature.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I've got 'em, and a good (Pioneer Elite) player.
What's the best capture process out there, or should I find a pro shop?
I also want decent streams for DLNA playback.